Like I said, I’m beginning to think there’s something in the water. To be specific, the water that movie critics are drinking from this year. Or maybe because of the gluttony of “must see” movies coming out this time of year, they’re collectively overdosing on Red Bull or some other popular energy drink and just don’t realize it. Is “The Lone Ranger” the best summer movie to come out so far this year? No. Is it a piece of crap, totally missing the mark? Not even close.
I remember going to see “The Legend of the Lone Ranger,” back in 1981, and coming out disappointed. The movie wasn’t a complete failure for me, but it just wasn’t what I was expecting, not by a long shot. It had its moments, but as I recall they were few and far between. To be honest, I can’t even quote a single line or scene from that movie off the top of my head. But after watching this year’s Disney version of “The Lone Ranger,” the two are worlds apart.
Trust me.
The movie/story is about the origins of both the Lone Ranger AND Tonto. And while both story lines have conveniences present, the conveniences are no more insulting than others portrayed in movies such as Lethal Weapon, Die Hard, or even The Avengers. What I’m saying is, if two men are lying on the ground and a third man wants one of them dead, in the real world he’d probably make sure the other one was dead as well by putting a bullet in his head when he had the chance. But in fictional movie speak, if that were to happen we’d have a pretty short movie, right?
Right.
But we’re talking about a movie here, and sometimes the good guy gets away with a thing or two that the rest of us know all too well and good wouldn’t happen if it was us. In the real world, the bad guy wouldn’t go on a rant as he circles around our wounded leg future carcass—he’d just shoot us in the head and be done with it! But that’s real life, and we’re not talking about real life…we’re talking about a movie. And while in this movie there are times you might think “that wouldn’t happen,” the same can be said for pretty much every action movie ever made, so no harm no foul.
Moving on, one of the “changes” made in the Lone Ranger’s storyline is that he’s not an actual Texas Ranger, but rather an aspiring DA, a man married to the letter of the law, rather than one who enforces it with a gun, even to the point that he doesn’t believe in guns. That caught me off guard a bit, but in the end it played out well. John Reid’s brother, however, is a Texas Ranger and when he and his men go after the recently escaped Butch Cavendish, he deputizes John Reid so that he can join them. And as the story goes they are ambushed, everyone dies except John Reid, and eventually Tonto (Depp) finds him. But Tonto thinks they’re all dead and for some inexplicable reason digs shallow graves for all them. And it’s during this process that he realizes John Reid isn’t dead, much to his regret. Tonto’s on a quest to kill Cavendish, believing he’s a Wendigo—an evil spirit that eats human flesh—and after meeting John and Dan Reid, figured Dan (the Lone Ranger’s brother) would have brought more to the table. But that’s not how things worked out (as we all know), and so Tonto calls John Reid “kemosabe,” which according to the movie means “wrong brother” and not “trusted scout” or “trusted friend” according to the old radio and TV series. Um…okay. Not sure where the writers got that from, but whatever. It works for the movie, so what the heck.
As the second act moves along, John Reid’s transition from book smart lawyer to eventual gun slinging hero unfolds, as well as his struggling relationship with Tonto. Some (or most?) have said this movie is more about Tonto than the titled character, to which I agree, but it’s more of a 55/45 split, in my opinion. Depp gets more screen time than Armie Hammer, but quite a bit of that comes in the form of “post story” scenes, as a twilight aged Tonto tells the story of the Lone Ranger to a little boy (which is how the movie begins, and then segues back into now and then throughout). Basically, it’s a lot of Armie Hammer resisting direct violence, with Depp rolling his eyes, wanting more action than words from his reluctant “companion,” and finding it hard to get said action. But as the story moves along, Hammer starts to realize that sometimes a man’s just gotta do what a man’s gotta do. And that brings us to the third act.
I’m not going to even try to hide my giddiness over this part, so bash me if you want. When the Lone Ranger’s theme—the one from the TV series—kicks in, a big grin pulled across my lips and I felt chills run down my back! As the movie progressed, I began to wonder if and when they’d use the theme, and I’m telling ya…they did and they nailed it!
The third act is jam packed with action, some of it over the top just like in Pirates of the Caribbean, but exciting nonetheless. Thinking back on it, I can see how some didn’t find the closure of the third act as satisfying as they would have liked, but they’re nitpicking, in my opinion, which brings me back to my opening comment about something being in the water most movie critics are drinking this year. The ending was really good, flirting with great, but compared to other recent movies it probably missed the mark by a titch. And that’s the problem with critic’s reviews of The Lone Ranger—they’re comparing it to The Dark Knight, The Avengers, Iron Man 3 or Man of Steel, and that’s just not fair.
It’s a western, for cryin’ out loud!
The last “great” ending to a western I’ve seen in the last twenty years occurred in “Unforgiven” and “Open Range.” Maybe I’ve forgotten one or two, but you get my drift.
At the end of the day, Johnny Depp being in the “Lone Ranger” doesn’t and shouldn’t automatically make it the old western equivalent of “Pirates of the Caribbean,” nor should it be compared to recent blockbusters from the past two or three years. It is what it is…a good western telling the somewhat modified story of an American icon that has existed for over eighty years or so. To expect it to be anything else is just personal folly.
Positives: The chemistry between Hammer and Depp is spot on and a joy to watch. The action is excellent, though sometimes over the top. The pace of the movie is just fine, as it never drags as some have suggested. But when the Lone Ranger’s theme kicks in, it’s all worth the wait.
Negatives: Helena Bonham Carter’s part is a waste of time, which is sad because I like most of her work. I don’t know how much time of her “storyline” was committed to the movie, but they could have cut her completely out and figured another way to address her part in the third act, without breaking a sweat. Some of the action is over the top, but still exciting. Johnny Depp needs to break away from his quirky roles and do a serious role or two in the near future. His “Tonto” wasn’t “Captain Jack Sparrow” reincarnated, but significant hints of Sparrow were there, nonetheless. And there are times when a character gets from point A to point B without explanation, or sometimes with a very weak explanation.
Is “The Lone Ranger” going to be this year’s best summer blockbuster movie? No. Does it deserve to be this summer’s biggest flop? Not even close. But neither did last year’s “John Carter,” which I loved, so what do I know?
“The Lone Ranger” is what it is, a fun summer popcorn and candy movie that’ll entertain you from start to finish. Sure, it has issues, but nothing glaringly more than other movies in the past that we hold close to our hearts.
“The Lone Ranger” gets 4 out of 5 stars in my book. And just like “John Carter,” if it doesn’t get a sequel because of the lack of money it brings in, we the fans are the ones that are going to suffer for it.
I’m Citizen…